@Dhmspector seeing as that wasn't the question before the court, it's highly unlikely.
Even Trump's side at oral argument stressed that it's not what they were asking for.
@volkris on immunity? Sure it was. Their argument was before the district court thst SCOTUS is ruling on is that Trump could assassinate people if he wanted — political rivals or including senators — and unless he was impeached AND convicted by the senate it was all legal and he’s otherwise immune from any act while President.
@Dhmspector SCOTUS is ruling on the specific question, "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
Unless you'd allege that assassinating a political rival is an official act legally available to a president, that doesn't fall within the scope of the question the Court is considering.
And again, this was made plain during oral arguments.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html
@volkris I’m not alleging it — his lawyers did at the district court level and reiterated it more or less in their argument before the Supreme Court.
@Dhmspector I showed you the question that's before the court.
It doesn't matter one wit what you think his lawyers said in the district court, that's not the question before this court.
